• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Call for $50 Billion Spending on Public Works

Since the passage of the economic stimulus package in mid-February, the Obama Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects. The movement of stimulus money out the door has been as swift as it has been effective: $9.3 billion has been spent in all 50 states. Touting its impact, DOT officials say 260,000 jobs are expected from this investment. And with competition for contracts fierce, the department is set to approve even more projects than previously envisioned. "There will be more money for additional transportation projects," said the official.

I think it's just a testament of just how much work our infrastructure system needs. A lot of the stimulus money went to building roads and such, their is just so much work to be done though that more is needed.
 
you know that 3 trillion we spent on a war with the wrong country could have been really useful right about know though. You conservatives are right though, a 800 billion dollar stimulus package is far worse then spending 3 trillion dollars on a war with the wrong country while killing thousands and thousands and also losing thousands of are own troops.

Really? 3 trillion? why does the CBO disagree with you? You continue to buy what you are sold by leftwing sites that just make you look foolish.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/
 
Last edited:
His rhetoric is no worse than that coming from the GOP. The main difference between GOP and DEM rhetoric is the target audience. Republicans see more value in destroying the ME than building America...Democrats are the opposite....currently anyway. Historically, both sides have their moments of stupidity...

LOl the bias in that is pathetic
 
Really? 3 trillion? why does the CBO disagree with you? You continue to buy what you are sold by leftwing sites that just make you look foolish.

how much has it cost us then? the $60 billion George W. told us it would back in 2003????
 
I think it's just a testament of just how much work our infrastructure system needs. A lot of the stimulus money went to building roads and such, their is just so much work to be done though that more is needed.

Where is the gasoline taxes collected everytime you buy gasoline going? That is where the infrastructure revenue was supposed to come from
 
you know that 3 trillion we spent on a war with the wrong country could have been really useful right about know though. You conservatives are right though, a 800 billion dollar stimulus package is far worse then spending 3 trillion dollars on a war with the wrong country while killing thousands and thousands and also losing thousands of are own troops.


$3 Trillion? where are you getting this number from? Out of thin air? Or from Olberman? Wait, same thing.

Anyway....CBO places the cost of the wars, over the 9 years at around $700 Billion....bout the same as Obama spent in one stoke of the pen for his stimulus that didn't work. Conflating numbers won't do you any good. If you think that Bush blew the budget, which I would agree he did, then Obama has outdone him by three times, and a third of the timeframe....

j-mac
 
how much has it cost us then? the $60 billion George W. told us it would back in 2003????


UUhhh, maybe you should read the link he posted for you......??



.
 
how much has it cost us then? the $60 billion George W. told us it would back in 2003????

What does GW Bush have to do with the current spending and the 3 trillion added to the debt since Obama took office? Putting Bush spending on steroids and then blaming Bush for it is typical liberal diversion.
 
If you want to take the CBO's estimate then fine but they don't factor in absolutely every expense incurred due to the war. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist, has put the long term price tag of this war at 4 trillion.

Regardless though, you want to go CBO then still then go by them. Bush told us in 2003 it would cost only 50-60 billion and now the CBO says we are at 700 billion (and projecting total cost of 2 trillion) and Nobel prize winning economist believe complete total cost is around 3-4 trillion!

I only mentioned this because I see all these conservatives bitching about the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan but tend to completely throw the Iraq war under the rug.
 
So I thought Congress and the White House agreed that future spending would be matched with cuts. I thought programs were to be paid for. Another broken promise? For those that says its not much money in the scheme of things. Yet its spending money we don't have. Also where does the worker go when the project is done? The massive spending has got to stop.
 
If you want to take the CBO's estimate then fine but they don't factor in absolutely every expense incurred due to the war. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist, has put the long term price tag of this war at 4 trillion.

Regardless though, you want to go CBO then still then go by them. Bush told us in 2003 it would cost only 50-60 billion and now the CBO says we are at 700 billion (and projecting total cost of 2 trillion) and Nobel prize winning economist believe complete total cost is around 3-4 trillion!

I only mentioned this because I see all these conservatives bitching about the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan but tend to completely throw the Iraq war under the rug.

What does any of that have to do with the DEFICITS Obama is creating. You do know the difference between a deficit and the debt don't you? The costs of the Iraq War were spread over 7 years and are already factored into the yearly deficit and cumulative debt. The 800+ stimulus contributed to the 1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009 and the 1.4 trillion debt this year. What were the projections for the deficit, affect on the economy, and unemployment by the Obama Administration?

Why are liberals so passionate about their failed ideology?
 
If you want to take the CBO's estimate then fine but they don't factor in absolutely every expense incurred due to the war. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist, has put the long term price tag of this war at 4 trillion.

Regardless though, you want to go CBO then still then go by them. Bush told us in 2003 it would cost only 50-60 billion and now the CBO says we are at 700 billion (and projecting total cost of 2 trillion) and Nobel prize winning economist believe complete total cost is around 3-4 trillion!

I only mentioned this because I see all these conservatives bitching about the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan but tend to completely throw the Iraq war under the rug.

You have a link to that "George Bush $50-60 billion" statement....??


.
 
If you want to take the CBO's estimate then fine but they don't factor in absolutely every expense incurred due to the war. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist, has put the long term price tag of this war at 4 trillion.

Regardless though, you want to go CBO then still then go by them. Bush told us in 2003 it would cost only 50-60 billion and now the CBO says we are at 700 billion (and projecting total cost of 2 trillion) and Nobel prize winning economist believe complete total cost is around 3-4 trillion!

I only mentioned this because I see all these conservatives bitching about the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan but tend to completely throw the Iraq war under the rug.


Well, I wouldn't get to heated over your Nobel Economist there. No surprize that he is a far lefty, that coupled with the UN laid out their economic plan for globalization. Yeah.....So...It's probably a safe bet to say that he is rather against the Iraq War to start with and his numbers and conclusions reflect that through inflation of costs.


j-mac
 
Curious. Which particular massive infrastructure rot is Bush responsible for....??

Federal cuts to infrastructure maintenance in his time were responsible for its deterioration going from acceptable grades to Cs Ds and Fs by a ratings bureau or engineers from here or there.

Kay Bailey Hutchison on “Meet The Press”: US Infrastructure Improved Under Bush | Firedoglake

I dont quite know how to research to find the facts but it was featured on NPR several times (which I used to listen to daily) where I heard it during the Bush years. The above site features some links.
 
Well, I wouldn't get to heated over your Nobel Economist there. No surprize that he is a far lefty, that coupled with the UN laid out their economic plan for globalization. Yeah.....So...It's probably a safe bet to say that he is rather against the Iraq War to start with and his numbers and conclusions reflect that through inflation of costs.


j-mac

I wonder if this was the same UN whose security council voted 15-0 authorizing Resolution 1441 claiming that Iraq was in material breach of the Gulf War Cease fire

The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.
 
A good way to employ some people and repair the massive rot to our infrastructure that occurred under the Bush years.

Try to be relatively realistic, the rot in the infrastructure of the USA has taken considerably longer than the mere 8 years of the Bush Adminstration.

As soon as any construction is completed it begins to decay.
 
Federal spending on the war effort and public works is what got us out of the Great Depression.

It's called jobs people. When people have money, they spend it and the entire economy rebounds.
 
Federal spending on the war effort and public works is what got us out of the Great Depression.

No it really doesnt, especially if nothing is produced. War destroys it doesnt create, World War 2 brought the unemployment rate down because everyone was fighting in it

It's called jobs people. When people have money, they spend it and the entire economy rebounds.

No **** but not when the jobs are nothing but tax payer money being shuffled around.
 
Federal cuts to infrastructure maintenance in his time were responsible for its deterioration going from acceptable grades to Cs Ds and Fs by a ratings bureau or engineers from here or there.

Kay Bailey Hutchison on “Meet The Press”: US Infrastructure Improved Under Bush | Firedoglake

I dont quite know how to research to find the facts but it was featured on NPR several times (which I used to listen to daily) where I heard it during the Bush years. The above site features some links.

Interesting article/link to the ratings and engineers. It was a 2009 article focused on the previous 4 years. (things weren't good in 2005, but have diminished notably since 2005...)

Congress controls the money, and the Dems took over both houses in 2006. So trying to dump all the issues on Bush is at least clumsy and a little ridiculous.

Am guessing that there have been few good report cards for the overall "infrastructure" going back for decades. Until a bridge collapses, our congress pricks aren't usually all that focused on infrastructure. Ain't sexy....



.




.
 
:roll: Look. Firstly I dont think all the stimulus money has been spent. Possibly allocated, but not spent from what I know. Second. Most economists would tell you the stimulus was too small, so Im not opposed to this plan. Third, without a stimulus wed definitely be worse off. In my simple understanding of economic increasing govt spending during a recession maintains output, preventing a worse outcome. Seriously you ARE blaming Obama in his 2 years for not being able to completely put of a disaster from the previous administration that he's inherited.

I could swear he's only been in office since January 2009.
 
I could swear he's only been in office since January 2009.

Yeah, based upon the poor results I would have thought much, much longer, only 3 trillion added to the debt and 16 million unemployed. I can see why many think it has been much longer.
 
Only to compound matters is the fact that our Country is now a consuming nation rather than a producing nation which is only going to make recessions longer and tougher.
 
Yeah, based upon the poor results I would have thought much, much longer, only 3 trillion added to the debt and 16 million unemployed. I can see why many think it has been much longer.

I can believe the 3 trillion dollars, but how did Obama become responsible for the 16 million unemployed?
 
since it has no chance of passage, since it won't even be written up, obtuse obama's latest half baked bid, product of a weekend's deliberation, is mere talking points, naked electioneering

he has to TRY at least to show the electorate that he's not COMPLETELY solution-bereft when it comes to what ails us

Obama assails GOP, promotes new jobs program - Yahoo! News

see things as they are

happy labor day
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom